Is Darfur Really a Genocide? – Alan Wolfe, The New Republic

Alex de Waal would like this discussion to get back to the concrete, specifically to the question of what the Obama administration ought to do about Darfur. But to answer that question, we first have to know what we are dealing with, since any effective policy depends upon a correct definition of the situation. What then are we dealing with? A civil war? An insurgency? Genocide?

The question of genocide in particular cannot be avoided because everything else flows from it. It is because Eric Reeves is convinced that genocide is ongoing that he urges forceful action. And it is because de Waal does not agree with Reeves that he recommends a solution in which the United States plays a behind-the-scenes role urging the Sudanese to develop their own political solution to the conflict.

There is, moreover, what can only be called a genocide narrative than runs throughout any discussion of mass atrocities taking place in the world today. No one contributed more to the development of this narrative than Samantha Power, who, as we all know, may just play an important role in fashioning the Obama administration’s response to the ICC ruling. This narrative runs roughly as follows. We should never conclude that the defeat of the Nazis and the death of Stalin ended the era of genocide. There have been many other genocides since. Because with the exception of former Yugoslavia they take place outside Europe, we prefer not to pay attention. Indeed our leaders typically go to great lengths to avoid using the term genocide. Such indifference allows terrible crimes to continue and horrendous criminals to escape punishment. The world’s conscience is the most powerful tool at our command to stop the killing. We should never be afraid to call things by their proper names and we should bring as much pressure to bear on our governments as we can to stop the killing.